Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Overseas Health Care (P) Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 9 October, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH 160 017
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. E/952/2009
(Arising out of OIA No. 42/CE/APPL/JAL/2009 dt. 26.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jalandhar HQrs at Chandigarh.)
Date of hearing/decision: 09.10.2017
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical)
========================================
M/s Overseas Health Care (P) Ltd.
Appellant(s) VS CCE, Chandigarh.
:
Respondent(s) ======================================== Appearance:
Sh. Gautam Chugh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Sh. Satyapal, AR for the Respondent(s) CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. 61940/2017 Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order and contesting only penalty imposed on them.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged during the impugned period in manufacture of P&P medicaments. The appellant was clearing physician's samples for free distribution as per the trade practice and marketing strategy. The dispute in the present case is valuation of such Physicians Samples supplied to the Doctors free of cost. The appellant has claimed that the value of such Physicians Samples should be made only on basis of cost products in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, whereas the Revenue sought to recover the duty while adopting the value of Physician's Samples on the basis of pro rata value of retail pack of the medicaments. In these set of facts, a show cause notice issued to the appellant and the demand of duty alongwith interest were confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty also imposed on the appellant. The appellant is contesting only imposition of penalty.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. Considering the fact that the issue involved in this matter has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II 2008 (232) ELT 245 (Tri. LB), wherein it was held that the duty on Physician Sample is required to pay on the basis of pro rata value of retail pack of the medicaments. We also note the fact that in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. A/61298-61299/2017-EX[DB] dt. 13.07.2017, this Tribunal held that the demand of duty is payable by the appellant alongwith interest but no penalty is imposable on the appellant in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II (supra) as the issue of valuation was decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal.
5. Considering the fact that as issue involving in the matter has been settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in that circumstances, we hold that the penalty on the appellant is not imposable, therefore, the following order is passed:-
(a) Demand of duty alongwith interest is confirmed.
and
(b) No penalty is imposable on the appellant.
6. With these terms, the appeal is disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Devender Singh Member (Technical) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) NS 3 Appeal Nos. E/2257-2258/2009-CHD